Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

So L-E, this is not a trick question but you do seem to view CC more as settled scientific law vs. theory at this point, although you're still not clear on whether your views extend beyond (a) GW exists, and (b) it is caused by humans. This seems to be what's causing you such angst when others post a challenge. I suppose I would be troubled too if I heard somebody say the law of gravity, for e.g., was bogus. But that is not how I view CC so remain open to all views.

Maybe you or others might care to respond, but I won't be offended if I have to wait until next year.

No problemo. I'm quitting in 10 min. No more calls.

My position:

• a staggeringly huge percentage of the subject matter experts think that global warming is happening and it's mainly caused by human activity
• these same experts think it's sufficiently likely and serious enough that they advise we should do something about it
• when a staggeringly huge percentage of the subject matter experts have come forward with such information, I think we need to take it seriously

It's not a law, it's simply the best information we have, from the people most likely to know about it.

A common trait of good CEOs is that when they have sufficient information, they act. They don't get mired in every little what-if, or pick at flaws where they don't exist or are immaterial. I think we have enough info to start discussing action. At very least to keep studying.

If someone doesn't want to act, well their view might be different.

Going offline, and private-jetting to Al Gore's for new years. Best Wishes to All

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

A common trait of good CEOs is that when they have sufficient information, they do a thorough cost-benefit analysis before they act.

Sorry. Just wanted you to start the new year off right. Best wishes to you too.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

James Taylor lied. The authors respond to his misrepresentation of their study



Forbes Welcome

If nothing else, this seems to highlight the confusion over how far the "overwhelming consensus" really goes.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

If nothing else, this seems to highlight the confusion over how far the "overwhelming consensus" really goes.

The scientific consensus is well documented:

Some surveys that confirm that the majority of climate scientists support the scientific consensus on AGW

1. The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change - Naomi Oreskes, 2004
- In a review of 928 climate related peer reviewed papers none challenged the consensus.

2. Survey released by the Statistical Assessment Service at George Mason University, 2008
- Survey finds that even by 2008 97% of climate scientists agreed the earth is warming and 75% accepted AGW is happening

3. Survey of Earth Scientists - Peter Doran & former graduate student Maggie Kendall Zimmerman, 2009
- Approx. 90% of Scientists surveyed agreed that mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels
- Approx. 82% of Scientists surveyed agreed that human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures

4. Expert credibility in climate change - Anderegg, Prall, Harold & Schneider, 2009
97–98% of climate researchers most actively publishing support AGW

5. The Structure of Scientific Opinion on Climate Change, Farnsworth & Lichter 2012
489 scientists were surveyed
- 97% of agreed that global temperatures have risen over the past century
- 84% agreed that “human-induced greenhouse warming is now occurring.
- 5% disagreed with the idea that human activity is a significant cause of global warming.

6. Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature - Cook, Nuccitelli et al. 2013
- "Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming"
- "0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming."

7. Survey of Peer Reviewed Climate articles by James Lawrence Powell, 2013
- 10,883 out of 10,885 scientific articles agree: Global warming is happening, and humans are to blame
- For 2013 and 2014, Powell found that only 5 of 24,210 articles and 4 of 69,406 authors rejected anthropogenic global warming, showing that the consensus on AGW is above 99.9% and likely verges on unanimity.

The geoscientists that were surveyed by Myer and Lesfrud are primarily geologists and geophysicists who work in the oil patch. They are not academics, nor are they climate scientists.

I have several friends who work in the field and they have no time for AGW deniers.

[Exile]

All good info Jack, but what I meant to ask is how far does the consensus go beyond the conclusion that AGW is in fact occurring. E.g., how much is it expected to warm and over how long a period of time; what effects will this have on humans; are potential remedies realistic or futile; etc. In other words, the extent of the problem and the feasibility of the known solutions. I'm not asking you to re-post your many comments & links on this, just if you know if "consensus studies" have been done to determine how much agreement or not may exist within the scientific community on the problem and its solutions.

Otherwise one could argue that humans have always had an impact on their environment, but that obviously only goes so far.

If there really is a 99.9% consensus for AWG amongst the scientists but only a 50% consensus amongst the general population, I'd say your friends are probably going to have to make some time for the deniers.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Exile

If it makes you feel any better, there's no denying the strong consensus within the scientific community that there is an overall warming trend, and that it is partially human caused.

There, fixed it for you.

The infamous survey which produced the "97% of scientists" meme consisted of 2 questions:

1. “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?”

2. “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?”

I doubt that anyone here disputes these two points. I certainly don't.

What's amazing is that 3% of climate scientists apparently disagreed with at least one of these statements.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by StuM

There, fixed it for you.

The infamous survey which produced the "97% of scientists" meme consisted of 2 questions:

1. “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?”

2. “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?”

I doubt that anyone here disputes these two points. I certainly don't.

What's amazing is that 3% of climate scientists apparently disagreed with at least one of these statements.

Thanks for the fix, Stu. I've been looking for more precise feedback on the exact nature & extent of the "consensus" since this thread started. The entire AGW argument seems practically meaningless without it.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Umm, no.

It's like going to the doctor and being told that you have a disease that has a 95% chance of being lifestyle related that may have symptoms ranging from none to a remote possibility of severe that won't show up for decades and cannot be cured at this time,

However, there's a therapy available that may, or may not, prolong the above onset and alleviate any current asymptomatic problems if present. It just requires you to make radical and inconvenient changes to your everyday lifestyle at great expense starting today.

Not like eating your Brussels sprouts at all, imo.

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

Oh and by the way, this "disease" may well have other beneficial side effects for your general health.

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by jackdale

The scientific consensus is well documented:

Some surveys that confirm that the majority of climate scientists support the scientific consensus on AGW

1. The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change - Naomi Oreskes, 2004
- In a review of 928 climate related peer reviewed papers none challenged the consensus.

2. Survey released by the Statistical Assessment Service at George Mason University, 2008
- Survey finds that even by 2008 97% of climate scientists agreed the earth is warming and 75% accepted AGW is happening

3. Survey of Earth Scientists - Peter Doran & former graduate student Maggie Kendall Zimmerman, 2009
- Approx. 90% of Scientists surveyed agreed that mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels
- Approx. 82% of Scientists surveyed agreed that human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures

4. Expert credibility in climate change - Anderegg, Prall, Harold & Schneider, 2009
97–98% of climate researchers most actively publishing support AGW

5. The Structure of Scientific Opinion on Climate Change, Farnsworth & Lichter 2012
489 scientists were surveyed
- 97% of agreed that global temperatures have risen over the past century
- 84% agreed that “human-induced greenhouse warming is now occurring.
- 5% disagreed with the idea that human activity is a significant cause of global warming.

6. Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature - Cook, Nuccitelli et al. 2013
- "Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming"
- "0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming."

7. Survey of Peer Reviewed Climate articles by James Lawrence Powell, 2013
- 10,883 out of 10,885 scientific articles agree: Global warming is happening, and humans are to blame
- For 2013 and 2014, Powell found that only 5 of 24,210 articles and 4 of 69,406 authors rejected anthropogenic global warming, showing that the consensus on AGW is above 99.9% and likely verges on unanimity.

The geoscientists that were surveyed by Myer and Lesfrud are primarily geologists and geophysicists who work in the oil patch. They are not academics, nor are they climate scientists.

I have several friends who work in the field and they have no time for AGW deniers.

If I'm not mistaken.... Wasn't Greenland named Greenland because the temperatures were much warmer hundreds of years ago when the Vikings first discovered the now, more thoroughly snow covered island?

Interesting... that somehow, people back then were able to find enough food to eat in such inhospitably warm conditions. If they'd discovered Greenland several million years earlier, maybe today it would be named Florida. which as we all know is uninhabitable except for only the most old and frail among us.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

If I'm not mistaken.... Wasn't Greenland named Greenland because the temperatures were much warmer hundreds of years ago when the Vikings first discovered the now, more thoroughly snow covered island?

Interesting... that somehow, people back then were able to find enough food to eat in such inhospitably warm conditions. If they'd discovered Greenland several million years earlier, maybe today it would be named Florida. which as we all know is uninhabitable except for only the most old and frail among us.

Greenland was a marketing ploy by Eric the Red.

The Vikings occupied a very small portion of the SW of Greenland. The rest was ice sheet.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

If there really is a 99.9% consensus for AWG amongst the scientists but only a 50% consensus amongst the general population, I'd say your friends are probably going to have to make some time for the deniers.

No one in this world, so far as I know—and I have researched the records for years, and employed agents to help me—has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people. Nor has anyone ever lost public office thereby.

H.L. Mencken

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by jackdale

H.L. Mencken

Let me translate...
The voters are dumb and we smarter then then people need to dictate and rule over them. They are just not smart enough, so we do eugenics on them and get rid of the undesirables....that's the path you are taking.

[senormechanico]

Originally Posted by jackdale

H.L. Mencken

It's no wonder you're such a fan of him.
From Wikipedia [snipped] :

As an admirer of German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, he was a detractor of religion, populism and representative democracy, which he believed was a system in which inferior men dominated their superiors.[2] Mencken was a supporter of scientific progress, skeptical of economic theories and critical of osteopathic and chiropractic medicine.
Mencken opposed American entry into World War I and World War II. His diary indicates that he harbored strong racist and anti-semitic attitudes, and was sympathetic to the Social Darwinism practiced by the Nazis.[3]

Whatta guy !

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by senormechanico

It's no wonder you're such a fan of him.
From Wikipedia [snipped] :

I am bigger fan of Asimov

“There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.”


― Isaac Asimov

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Greenland was a marketing ploy by Eric the Red.

The Vikings occupied a very small portion of the SW of Greenland. The rest was ice sheet.

So... Eric the Red turns out to be a 10th century real estate speculator. How do you explain the frail and elderly's ability to withstand the harsh, warm Florida conditions they now endure? And don't suggest a/c, my parents keep their place 87+F degrees inside year round in Southern California. According to some on this thread, a temperature increase of just a few degrees over the next 30 years will wipe out our food supplies, and sink the low land masses throwing the world into chaos.

Right now here in Massachusetts with the temps below freezing and snow on the ground, I'd much enjoy some of those very harsh warm conditions.